According to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, James Holmes, 24, the alleged perpetrator of the mass murder at the Aurora, Colorado theater showing of The Dark Knight Rises, claimed he was “The Joker” during the shooting. “We have some information, most of it is public,” said Kelly. “It clearly looks like a deranged individual. He had his hair painted red, he said he was ‘The Joker,’ obviously the ‘enemy’ of Batman.”...

Health Ledger’s portrayal of Batman arch-nemesis The Joker in the last installment of the Batman saga, The Dark Knight, won him a posthumous Oscar. The Joker was focused in that film on destroying Gotham City through chaos and mass murder; he also rigged buildings with booby traps in order to achieve that end.

235 comments:

Exactly. I'd add that he looks bright. But other than that kind of generality - and even relative brightness or dullness is not always discernible in the human visage - there's very little that can be read in a face. Some will disagree but that's been my experience.

Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes was in the process from withdrawing from a doctorate program in neuroscience at the University of Colorado-Denver, according to university spokesman Dan Myers. Holmes began the program last year.

There's a clue.

Also, his parents live in San Diego. I wonder he did undergrad at UCSD.

Maybe if he had spent more time studying and less time rigging his apartment with sophisticated booby traps he wouldn't have had to drop out of his doctorate program. And I'll disagree: He doesn't look ordinary; he looks like a fucking nut. His hair isn't even combed. Keep that loose cannon away from me.

I'm sure they are dancing as fast as they can in the press office of Obama 2012. You know they had queued up a tea-party attack theme, but then Brian Ross got out in front on that and stubbed his toe, Doh!

I went to bed early this morning with no knowledge of this story, and I know very little about it. But at least I'm willing to acknowledge that I know very little about it. Speculation should be embargoed until there is some sort of fact base from which to speculate.

I wouldn't want to be the liability carrier for the theater. Bend over!

According to CBS New York the shooter had painted his hair red and claimed to be "the Joker", leading CBS to conclude that "the Joker" refers to the famous Batman nemesis. They fail to note, however, that the copyrighted DC character has green hair, not red. Does this mean: (a) CBS News is staffed by unqualified people, i.e. schooled but uneducated? (b) The alleged shooter was inspired by a famous red-haired comedian, and not the comic book character? (c) James Holmes has red-green color blindness? (d) All of the above?

We have perhaps too much of a taste for sensationalism....mundane murders like the one killing at a time variety done by black thugs is largely ignored and unprotested.

Mass shootings, even though they are a blip on the overall murder and serious bodily injury felonies get the full frontal media frenzy going.Politicians pile on with each clawing to get camera time to show how empathetic they are. How flags should be lowered, how each Hero Victim Family should get 2 million dollars from the endless cash tree for Healing and Closure...how we all must mourn this!The 38 killed in NOLA, Chicago, ST Louis, and Detroit the same day....nawww..just mundane stuff.

The under classes in a world that no longer controls murderers is the theme of Joker and of Mack the knife. That is the same theme that is resonating with the Occupy Wall Street youth in an the Obama Disaster world...no jobs, no hope, and no one listening to them...it's Detroit coming soon everywhere.

Contrary to what some may think, we have always had horrific crimes committed by individuals (or a couple of people) against others. Look at newspapers from 50-70-90 years ago.

But this mass killing in high profile places. Schools, malls, theaters, fast food places. It would be interesting to get very detailed info on these people. Were they ignored by their parents. Spoiled by their parents. Did they play violent games or watch violent movies. (I don’t believe those things cause people to do crimes, but I wonder if there is a link for those who have problems anyway). Were they loners. Did they have real hobbies. Did they go to a church. Were they atheists. Did they participate in any sports or similar activities. Or did they sit around and do passive things.

Whenever there's a massacre like this, I think of the shooting in the Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania. That was the most disturbing of this type of incident, to me: The ages of the victims, their innocence and defenselessness; the fact that these children had lived quite Spartan lives for the tiny period they were allowed to live.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but I'd gladly make exceptions for these guys. I'd do it myself, in fact. Fat lot of good it would do, though.

Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes was in the process from withdrawing from a doctorate program in neuroscience at the University of Colorado-Denver, according to university spokesman Dan Myers. Holmes began the program last year.

A California woman who identified herself as the mother of James Holmes, the 24-year-old man federal authorities said is the suspect in a mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, told ABC News her son was likely the alleged culprit, saying, "You have the right person."

The woman, contacted at her home in San Diego, spoke briefly with ABC News and immediately expressed concern her son may be involved in the shooting death of at least 12 people overnight.

"You have the right person," she said, apparently speaking on gut instinct. "I need to call the police... I need to fly out to Colorado."

It doesn't surprise me that someone studying in a disciplined field like neuroscience can go off the deep end People with severe mental disturbances can often function at a very high level. They can even obfuscate their disorder somewhat. For example Ted Kaczynski was a highly intelligent individual in the disciplined field of complex analysis.

A certain percentage of humanity is crazy and/or evil, and a certain percentage of them are smart enough to bring insanely wicked ideas to fruition. This guy, like that killer in Norway, seems the perfect trifecta--crazy, evil, and smart......There will be sermons about the need for gun control, or the need for more concealed carry permits, or to tone down the violence in movies, or to show how this man's madness is in some way related to the Tea Party or Obama's programs. Morality is a way of making sense out of life. But I don't see any moral to this story. That's the most frightening part of this story. It's a random event of naturally occurring evil, and next week, next year there will be other such events. Maybe the next madman will have sufficient charisma to inspire followers. See Manson. See Hitler.

The film (if we can actually talk about it) doesn't hide its motivations. Just as The Dark Knight can be seen as a allegory for the War on Terror, Rises can equally be seen as a complete repudiation of the Occupy movement.

Nolan will never admit it, but he's certainly a trilogy of some right-of-center themed films.

I've also been watching the BBC's Twenty Twelve, about the somewhat-inept Olympic organization committee. Hugh Bonneville of Downton Abbey plays the lead. They repeatedly lampoon political correctness in a very deft manner, and the dumbest guy on the show is named Karl Marx. Really.

The Associated Press reports that Holmes began a program in neurosciences at the University of Colorado in the fall of 2011 but withdrew last month.

University spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery confirms Holmes was a graduate student at the school of medicine until last month. On May 8, he was scheduled to present a paper on MicroRNA biomarkers for a class on psychiatric and neurological disorders.

...The North County Times newspaper, which serves the San Diego area, quotes a neighbor who had lived next door to the Holmes' family for years as saying James had a degree in neuroscience from a University of California school.

While I'd bet dollars to dirt that Holmes won't turn out to have been a member of the Young Republicans, that really doesn't matter. He's batshit crazy. Any other chance associations he has doesn't imply that others with the same associations are also batshit crazy.

Brian Ross, on the other hand, is absolutely typical of his profession.

I completely agree; but don't you also think that his mother's response (as reported in the papers) was a bit odd? It seems to suggest that at least the family knew he had some mental illness and was at least capable of such violence.

Agree with Freeman and Freder (heh that sounds strange) that he may be schizophrenic, which in some cases doesn't manifest until early adulthood. Perhaps he was on medication, and stopped taking it. Who knows.

It's totally unfair to blame the mother, especially given such scant information.

I wonder if the theater being full of other/fellow students had any weight on Holmes' mind. My brother just finished his dental program and moved out of the area a couple weeks ago (thank goodness) but says it was the closest and cheapest theater for students.

About a half hour before Brian Ross broke his Tea Party angle story, Jake Tapper was on WLS-AM Chicago throwing a hissy fit when Don Wade asked him if the President was going to also address the equivalent of the Aurora tragedy that occurs every week in his hometown of Chicago where murders are up about 38% this year, including 3 last night.

Taps was self righteous and indignant that someone would dare to ask him such a question at that time. He then went on to tell Don that he could ask the question but that Jake would end the call if he wanted an answer.

Then to find out his counterpart was shilling such crap about the Tea Party. I wonder if Jake is going to call out Brian Ross for his speculation???

Before there was "Occupy [Your Town]," there were sit-ins and other similar leftist tactics. Some of the anti-nuclear protests in Europe had people camping out for years. Obama used the term "occupy" for his community organizing efforts in Chicago years ago. The presence of people doing such a thing is meant to resonate with the average citizen and demonstrate the seriousness and worth of the cause. Voters might even consider candidates that support the cause just to make the illegal, dangerous, and unsightly encampments go away, if for no other reason.

I completely agree; but don't you also think that his mother's response (as reported in the papers) was a bit odd? It seems to suggest that at least the family knew he had some mental illness and was at least capable of such violence.

She may have been aware that he was developing a mental illness, and maybe that it revolved around Batman, but she may not have realized the capacity for violence.

Imagine if you had a child in school in another state and it became obvious gradually through your long distance communications that he was losing his grip on reality. What would you do? Maybe he stops answering your emails after a while and stops answering your phone calls, too. Maybe you even go out there to try to get him help, but he won't answer his door to your knock. What do you do? He's a graduate student, an adult, hasn't made any threats or posed any danger to anyone in the community. Do you think the landlord is going to let you in the apartment? Do think the police would help you? No. You are left by yourself with your worries. Then you get the phone call she got. Wouldn't you react the same way?

The mother's response may just be her way of communicating--as has been implied. "Yes, you reached the right person based on what you told me." But it still beats "He's a good boy!" hands down. Refreshing.

PS Most schizophrenics aren't violent. When treated with proper medication, they're no more violent than the general population-- they can lead productive lives as long as they adhere to their outpatient treatment and medication.

So even if his mother knew he suffered from a mental illness, you can't blame her for the fact that he's not hospitalized or institutionalized.

If his mother suspected he was mentally ill, she probably tried to no avail to get him treatment or commitment.

I know two people who live in fear of their schizoid sons, but CA will do nothing until he assaults kills someone. Because this would limit their "freedom" according to taxpayer-funded "rights" organizations.

yashu said When treated with proper medication, they're no more violent than the general population...

I have a couple of chronic conditions that make me a threat to the general population. My doctors and the people around me are generally considered liable for the threats I impose. Real liability, like money and all.

Maybe this guy's mom had no idea. Maybe she just had a sense that he might be crazy.

Don't we hold people responsible for their actions and inactions? If I had a kid whom I thought might kill twelve people and injure scores more, wouldn't society justly hold me responsible for failing to report the problem?

I know two people who live in fear of their schizoid sons, but CA will do nothing until he assaults kills someone. Because this would limit their "freedom" according to taxpayer-funded "rights" organizations.

It's an odd definition of freedom when you are willing to lock people up--especially people with a bona-fide illness--for something they may do.

The film (if we can actually talk about it) doesn't hide its motivations. Just as The Dark Knight can be seen as a allegory for the War on Terror, Rises can equally be seen as a complete repudiation of the Occupy movement.

Nolan will never admit it, but he's certainly a trilogy of some right-of-center themed films.

…Downton Abbey...the dumbest guy on the show is named Karl Marx. Really.

That's refreshing. I'll have to keep watching DA. I gave it up, thought it was a bit boring.

Well if the left can conjecture about and blame the tea party tax payers without any real news-gathering, confirmation or vetting (and instead we get wishful hope-fueled lies and wish-facts)(AKA pro-democrat news) then I think someone on a blog can openly discuss the possibility that this guy, acting as a "bad guy" from a batman movie, is on the same page as the bad guy from a batman movie and is thusly an OWS member. The grievances line up perfectly.

We don't know the set of questions or list of circumstances given to the mother that brought about her response. But we do know that reporters will take any tidbit of a conversation, in or out of context, to generate reader response.

The language of all this is that the deranged guy is from "Not our Group"...he's from "The other guy's group". In the end, he's from all of our group: America. And that's what is so disturbing. WE DON"T DO THIS IN AMERICA. Yet it happens...as it does in Norway. There isn't a reason for this...it's too convoluted...it's not a derivation of any one thing...but an expression of Evil in the world.

If I had a kid whom I thought might kill twelve people and injure scores more, wouldn't society justly hold me responsible for failing to report the problem?

Umm no. I guess if he had called you up and said, "I'm going to dress up like the Joker and open fire in a crowded theater", you may bear guilt for not reporting that. But the threats would have to be very specific to make you even partially responsible. (And remember, there are certain classes of persons, e.g., priests in confession, who would not be able to warn anyone even if he laid out his plan in detail as an act of penance.)

I'll have to keep watching DA. I gave it up, thought it was a bit boring.

No, do give up on DA. He is talking about the show "2012" on BBC America about the (a fictional) Olympic Planning Committee. It is hilarious in that understated British way--satire along the lines of Spinal Tap or other Christopher Guest movie.

Hello?... Uh... Hello D- uh hello Dmitri? Listen uh uh I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh-ho, that's much better... yeah... huh... yes... Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri... Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha... Now then, Dmitri, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb... The *Bomb*, Dmitri... The *hydrogen* bomb!... Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing...

@mtrobertsattorney...with all due respect your model of neuroscience efficacy is a bit dated. Right here in Madtown WI we have a recently published peer reviewed work that demonstrates the power of meditation/prayer on the neuro activities of the brain. The free will to alter the chemistry and electrical activity in our brains is basically taking control of "intention". It is accepted that intention was formed and the brain transmitted to the rest of the body and it carried out action. Hence the ability of SCI patients to form intention and direct activity after a severed spinal cord...our wounded warriors are benefiting diretly from this new understanding. We are not a victim of the flow of neurotransmitters into our synaptic space. We have he power to control intention. Now, that surely doesn't mean that if conditions change in our body and imbalances occur that we are not going to respond to that in an automatic homeostatic way...we certainly may. We just know now that it is not what we thought, which supports the scientific method that challenges anything anyone wants to call "settled science".

This is why it is imperative that the individual be held accountable...not in retribution or revenge but, in honor of the absolute mystery of the individual human brain, variables changing in real time and our own free will. This is why this isn't about guns, political affiliations, hate, love, batman or anything else except that mind in that moment. If your one of those, "we must make sure this never happens again" types, you lose. It will in another individual variation.

It's totally unfair to blame the mother, especially given such scant information.

True. Even supposing she suspected that her son had a mental illness what did people expect her to do.

He is a grown man, not a little child. You can't MAKE him take his medicine.

They could have committed him to an institution, but to do that is incredibly difficult in today's politically correct attitude towards the mentally ill. Especially a grown adult.

Snuff him out at an early age, say 4 or 5, because they were psychic and knew just what he was going to do?

Perhaps have a tattoo on his forehead saying watch out crazy person? Follow him around with a sign pointing at him, saying be careful, dangerous nut job? Call everyone he comes into contact with and give them a warning? Chain him up in the basement? What?

And my favorite, which actually has happened to me when I tried to report a dangerous crazy person.....Call the police and have them tell you.....They can't do anything until he commits a crime.

If I had a kid whom I thought might kill twelve people and injure scores more, wouldn't society justly hold me responsible for failing to report the problem?

"If I had a kid"-- but he's an adult. He doesn't live with her. How was she to predict something like this might happen? If his mental illness manifested after he left home, she cannot force him into treatment. If he was being treated, she has no way to ensure or enforce that he continues to take his medication.

Who was she supposed to "report" to? Was she supposed to call the police in his town and tell them her son might maybe someday conceivably do... something? And what would those cops do? Perhaps the university was aware of his condition-- but once he dropped out, that institution has nothing to do with him either.

yashu, I'm not trying to make the accused guy's mom his nanny. I'm asking about morality. He's >18, so he's not her problem? What if your neighbor routinely shoots at pedestrians; do you get to say "not my problem" when the police ask you about that?

priests in confession, bullshit. A good priest would rat out the bastard.

Actually you are wrong. As you can see from the link, don't take my word from it, trust the Catholic Church.

From the link:

"The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (no. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to discloe a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would "displease" the penitent or reveal his identity. "

"If you’ve been a murderer, you didn’t get there on your own. . . . If you were a killer, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve killed numerous people — you're not the killer. Somebody else made that happen.”

"sydney said... I completely agree; but don't you also think that his mother's response (as reported in the papers) was a bit odd? It seems to suggest that at least the family knew he had some mental illness and was at least capable of such violence.

She may have been aware that he was developing a mental illness, and maybe that it revolved around Batman, but she may not have realized the capacity for violence."

Let's not ignore the obvious: law enforcement may have already contacted her. The police gave reporters his name, so they could have withheld it long enough to confirm his identity with the mother. Speculating the family knew because of the response is risky.

So lets review. James Holmes was so much of an adult that his mother could not control him but apparently he wasn't so adult that she was able to send him away to Denver for graduate school because he couldn't find a job after graduating from University of California-Riverside.

June 14, 2012 (JOLIET, Ill.) (WLS) -- A judge will allow prosecutors to call key witnesses to testify in the Drew Peterson case. The former Bolingbrook police sergeant is preparing to stand trial for the murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio.

Defense attorneys argued the testimony should not be allowed.

The judge says Kathleen Savio's divorce attorney and the pastor of Peterson's fourth wife, the missing Stacy Peterson, can be called at the trial.

The judge is allowing the testimony of both key witnesses; however, not without some requirements from prosecutors and more questioning from the judge to the divorce attorney during the trial.

Judge Edward Burmilla ruled on three defense motions Thursday. One is considered a clear victory for prosecutors: Stacy's Peterson's pastor will be allowed to testify as long as the state can prove Rev. Neil Schori's testimony is relevant. Peterson's attorneys were hoping to get Schori's statements thrown out based on marital privilege.

"We are very pleased with the judge's ruling today with regards to the application of the husband-wife privilege. He ruled that not all actions are communicative, and the ones that are not meant to be communication can be admissible in a trial," said Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow.

If allowed, Schori is expected to tell a jury that Drew Peterson's fourth and missing wife, Stacy, told him that she saw the former Bolingbrook cop return home the night his third wife Kathleen Savio was found dead dressed in black and carrying a bag of women's clothing.

What if your neighbor routinely shoots at pedestrians; do you get to say "not my problem" when the police ask you about that?

That's different. In that case the neighbor has actually done something dangerous or illegal. If you see this action, you are morally culpable if you don't report it.

However, if all your neighbor is doing is looking weird and hasn't actually done anything, I suppose you can TRY to report him and assuage your conscious from moral culpability. However, to do so would be a waste of your time as the police will have none of it since there has not been a crime. Just you being, as they see it, a nosy neighbor.

Just being weird and a loner is not a crime. Are we going to go around reporting everyone who is strange?

We have a certain friend who is strange, introverted, socially awkward and has OCD. He is going through a stressful time right now and everyone is trying to help him. (Being forced to move from his home and can't handle the change...OCD!) He has done nothing violent or even indicative of violence.......but.....if I read about him on top of a bell tower shooting people, I would not be surprised. What are you going to do? Should I report him to the police? For what? Being odd?

What if your neighbor routinely shoots at pedestrians; do you get to say "not my problem" when the police ask you about that?

But Bob, as far as I know, there is no pattern or history of violence in this case, there are no priors.

Of course in some sense we all have some moral responsibility toward the people around us, the people we're related to, we ought to look out for each other. That's all very well in the abstract, theoretically. But as DBQ puts it, what would you have had the parents do? What, specifically and concretely, ought she to have done that might have prevented this? And how do you know she didn't do whatever that might be?

What if your neighbor routinely shoots at pedestrians; do you get to say "not my problem" when the police ask you about that?

Actually, under our system of justice you are perfectly entitled to do so. You are not responsible for the actions of others nor is there a affirmative duty to intervene to stop a crime. Civil law systems are different.

"Actually you are wrong." I am not a Catholic, and the Catholic Church is often wrong.

To defend Freder here (this must be some kind of bearded Spock universe), it doesn't matter what you THINK about the Catholic church. Very, very few priests don't violate their oath of secrecy when it comes to confession. They may actually try to talk someone into turning themselves in, but beyond that, I'd like to see one example of what you're asserting.

Re: priests and the seal of confession. Freder is correct. They can not report crimes confessed to them. They can encourage the penitent to turn themselves in as part of their penance, though.

We once lived in a small town where a young child was murdered. It turned out the culprit was a neighbor. After he was arrested, it became known somehow that he had confessed the crime to the local priest. The priest took a lot of community hate for not reporting it. (And this was before the Church pedophile scandals) But, the priest did play an active role in getting the guy to turn himself in.

So I if I'm a psychopath, I have a "right" to do whatever I'm gonna do?

How do you know that someone's "gonna do"? This isn't Minority Report. All we can guess at is probabilities -- and the probability of someone committing a crime like this is incredibly small, regardless of how crazy they are.

A priest is free to testify in court to what someone said to him in confession.

No the law recognizes the sanctity of the confessional and would not allow a priest to testify even if he violated the sanctity. Similarly, the testimony of lawyer as to the crimes of a client under attorney-client privilege would not be admitted. The privilege belongs to the person confessing, not the confessor.

We can't lock people up because they might hurt someone else sometime. That would be the ultimate police state.

Yes. As conservatives/ libertarians (or those who value limited government), we should know this better than anyone. If the imperative is to prevent such things from happening at all costs, the only way to do so is a dramatic expansion of governmental power over individuals-- something we'd abhor.

While the info about the Drew Peterson case was most interesting, it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the question of what a Catholic priest would do, since Rev. Neil Schori isn't a Catholic priest.

The urge to blame is strong today, but please don't blame mom. Or at least have the courtesy to wait until there are facts that support your blame theory.

Dealing with an adult mentally disturbed child is a nightmare. The authorities do not help you. Or they provide unhelpful "help." (Pamphlets, discussion groups.) Other members of the family and community blame you for not raising and controlling the "child" properly. Meanwhile, the "child" uses his or her disability, the power of crazy, (which is never acknowledged as an actual problem)to bully amd guilt trip the parent, take over the house, the car, the bank account, etc. You think you could do better? Put your foot down and not put up with this bullshit? Don't be so sure. Try to take steps and the "child" calls the cops on you and makes wild accusations, or has an "episode" which ends up with your car in the neighbor's pool, etc. etc. etc. I've seen all these things and more happen to good people who were trying to do the right thing both by their offspring and by society.

Blamers gonna blame. Left wing blamers hit the usual targets: guns, Rush, Tea Party, violence in the movies. Duh. Right wing blamers, constricted by the first and second amendments, have to get creative. Or you could just acknowledge known reality and wait for the rest of the facts to come out.

Gee, I'm humbled. I have never felt so much love on this site. To have Palladian and DBQ agree with me in the same thread! We must have stepped into bizarro world (although that is Superman, not Batman, right?)

Selina Kyle: You think this can last? There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.

wyo sis said...Freder has this much right. We can't lock people up because they might hurt someone else sometime. That would be the ultimate police state.

================While many agree with this sentiment on general principle, the truth is there are clear cases where evaluation of a disturbed person shows they are a menace to the community.

Public safety, like terrorism cannot wait ideally on "the crime to be committed". News that "everybody knew he was deranged, violent... a danger...but now that he has killed 30 people at Virginia Tech or 14 at a movie theater in another means that we can now force the treatment he needs?"

Very stupid and reactive.

The pendulum swings. At one point we clearly locked up, involuntarily committed, or forced too many people into treatment on grounds of menace to public safety. But now we have gone the other way, NO ONE is forced to be treated or put away. And the James Holmes,Seung-Hui Chos, Major Nidal Hasans walk amongst us with impunity until the butchery is done....Then we get a parade of people that say they are not surprised, thought it was likely the disturbed ones would eventually kill..but were helpless to stop the butcher under current rules.

wyo sis said...Freder has this much right. We can't lock people up because they might hurt someone else sometime. That would be the ultimate police state.

--------------Keep in mind too that the descriptor "ultimate police state" under that criterion would apply to the United States from the Revolution until the 1970s - when crazy dangerous people and some not so crazy dangerous people were under state monitoring, involuntary treatments, or locked up in nuthouses as menaces.

Under the "ultimate police state" America was for its 1st 200 years though...despite serious abuses...You would have had the Unabomber on the States radar screen and being scrutinized for danger even before he bombed. The deranged Korean Seung-ji Cho forced to take anti-psychotic drugs once aithorities were alerted to his violent visions and threats.

We did go our 1st 200 years without Freedom for Freedom Loving psychotics high on our list of "precious rights">

FF said.."No, do give up on DA. He is talking about the show "2012" on BBC America about the (a fictional) Olympic Planning Committee. It is hilarious in that understated British way--satire along the lines of Spinal Tap or other Christopher Guest ."

Whew. I really didn't like Downton. A few friends are addicted, but it left me... asleep.Never heard of "2012". Probably because I only have basic. Thank for the tip.

CedarfordUnder any scenario this particular person would not have qualified as a dangerous person.I there is proof through prior acts that a person is dangerous there are laws in place to handle them.I can't have my neighbor locked up for rape because he has a penis. Though he could conceivable at some point go crazy and rape me. That is what I mean. Some people will do unpredictable things. We don't lock up everyone just because we think there is a means for them to commit a crime.

LoafingOaf, I hope you also feel some outrage about the original MSM reporting-- on ABC, broadcast on TV-- that linked this massacre to the Tea Party (which is what the Breitbart blog site is reacting to).

In the early 80s I had a good friend that had everything in the world going for him. One day he drove his new pickup into a lawyer's office front door. His behavior became wierder and then he tried to commit suicide, but someone found him before the exhaust from his car killed him. Something was wrong, and his family tried everything in the world, including having him committed. They found out he had a chemical imbalance in his brain. He refused the drugs that would have helped him out and the hospital had to let him go after 3 days. He eventually killed himself. Again, there was nothing his family could do. He sought no notoriety, and thankfully, he didn't take anyone else with him.

chickelit: "But I don't want anything to do with a group hug involving Oaf because of how he defended Palin smears."

Group hug? Eh? What, is there some theme going on here where the right wingers who usually troll anyone outside their team decided to chill out for a bit? Try posting one thing that is to the left of the majority here and watch as you get called every name in the book. Quite a silly cult going on here.

And what are you on about with Palin? You're very protective of the politician who engages in smears every chance she gets. Why am I required to be respectful of a politician just because you have a crush on her? She's a scumbag who had wolves in Alaska ruthlessly hunted down by gunmen in helicopters, and she flunked the vetting process for the high office she sought. Find better candidates and move on.

LoafingOaf, you're being disingenuous. Surely you're aware that the MSM (e.g. NYT and major networks and cable news) linked Loughner to Palin, to the Tea Party, to conservatives. A connection that proved to be completely false.

And again today, another horrifying massacre, again linked by the MSM (on TV) to the Tea Party, to conservatives, on the basis of nothing at all. Bracketing your partisan affiliations, seriously, do you feel any outrage about that?

I too know a guy who drove a truck through a glass wall. Except it wasn't a truck it was a Mercedes and the glass wall was to the restaurant that hired him to park cars. It was his first day. As valet parking guy. Vrrrooooom right through the glass. On his first night. He didn't last.

That's my favorite story I make him tell over and over he's such an idiot. I make him put in all the details. As an actor he cannot resist elaborating the story that makes himself look hilariously dangerously expensively idiotic and I laugh all over again as if hearing it for the first time.

yashu said..."LoafingOaf, I hope you also feel some outrage about the original MSM reporting-- on ABC, broadcast on TV-- that linked this massacre to the Tea Party (which is what the Breitbart blog site is reacting to)."

I was at work all day and am not up to speed on every little thing that went on in the media today. Althouse promised to not give links to the places that were politicizing this and then she linked me to a place politicizing it.

If what you say is true it wouldn't surprise me and that is the pathetic news media for ya. And it sounds like the right wing media is using that as an excuse to politicize it themselves.

Here, I'll give some props to Fox News. I happened to get up obscenely early. Wanted to see some British Open in the wee hours. When this story broke, Fox was the first and had the most info. CNN took about an hour to get on the story. MSNBC was still showing their reruns of their partisan talk shows and didn't get to covering the story for like 2 hours. So, Fox was the best for breaking news in the wee hours.

LoafingOaf, I'm glad to see that you acknowledge the awfulness of a "pathetic news media."

But I hope that if you're going to accuse "the right wing media" of politicizing this, you take a good look at what that "right wing media" is reacting to and has reason to feel righteous indignation about: MSM reporting by ABC on TV that directly linked this massacre to a member of the Tea Party, on the basis of nothing at all other than their own political bias.

yashu: "And again today, another horrifying massacre, again linked by the MSM (on TV) to the Tea Party, to conservatives, on the basis of nothing at all."

I didn't see anyone in the MSM linking this to the Tea Party. I don't watch TV all day. But if you're suggesting that the MSM is working hard to connect this to the Tea Party, why am I not seeing that? Sounds like one news show in the MSM goofed and corrected their mistake and the right wing media is acting like the entire MSM is victimizing them. Isn't that whole playing the victim thing also a form of politicizing the incident?

BTW, some kooky conservative I was talking to was trying to attack Obama for ordering flags to half mast. Dear Lord....

LoafingOaf, for your information, this is what transpired on Good Morning America today.

Here is the exchange between ABC News chief investigator Brian Ross and host George Stephanopoulos about apparent suspect James Holmes:

Stephanolpoulos: I’m going to go to Brian Ross. You’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.

Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

"Ultimately it's how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another. It's what we do on a daily basis to give our lives meaning and to give our lives purpose. That's what matters. At the end of the day, what we'll remember will be those we loved and what we did for others. That's why we're here. I'm sure that many of you who are parents here have the same reaction that I did when I heard this news."

“My daughters go to the movies. What if Malia and Sasha had been in the theater as so many of our kids do every day? Michelle and I will be fortunate enough to hug our girls a little tighter tonight.”

“The people we lost in Aurora loved and were loved. They were mothers and fathers, they were husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled.”

"I think today is a day for prayer and reflection. I'd like us to pause in a moment of silence of the victims of this terrible tragedy."

LoafingOaf hinted: BTW, some kooky conservative I was talking to was trying to attack Obama for ordering flags to half mast. Dear Lord....

I understand where that conservative sentiment may be coming from--it may become terribly important to reenforce the Columbine-like nature of this atrocity--perhaps to justify stricker gun control. Lord knows Holder has failed. But we should save that discussion for tomorrow, Loaf.

"Our hearts break with the sadness of this unspeakable tragedy. Ann and I join the president and first lady and all Americans in offering our deepest condolences for those whose lives were shattered in a few moments, a few moments of evil, in Colorado. I stand before you today not as a man running for office but as a father and grandfather, a husband, an American. This is a time for each of us to look into our hearts and remember how much we love one another and how much we love and how much we care for our great country. There's so much love and goodness in the heart of America."

"We pray that the wounded will recover and that those who are grieving will know the nearness of god. Today, we feel not only a sense of grief, but perhaps also of helplessness, but there is something we can do. We can offer comfort to someone near us who is suffering and we can mourn with those who mourn in Colorado."

"If I were the Tea Party Holmes, I’d have my lawyer talking to ABC right now. My terms: Groveling apology to be repeated on at least two national newscasts, plus This Week and all Colorado affiliates. Plus $250K in damages. No apology by tonight, and the demand goes to $5 million. Oh, and guys, be sure to preserve all records, browser histories, etc. for litigation..."

Oh, and guys, be sure to preserve all records, browser histories, etc. for litigation...

It does make sense that someone would make the error that Ross made by google searching "Tea Party + Jim or James Holmes" rather than by searching just the name and then finding that there's one who belongs to the Tea Party. But the real maliciousness was putting the smear it out there.

What do you suggest as an alternative PatCA? What's to prevent people from putting away perfectly innocent people who get a faulty diagnoses or worse who are committed by someone with less than altruistic motives. Would you feel better if there were innocent people institutionalized for life? We can't know the unknowable. We can only deal with the present reality. I'd like to see more really provably dangerous people taken out of society and we could do a much better job of that than we're doing, but after that what?

The irony was unintended. When the First Daughters (I would have preferred First Brats, but they have been decent enough, I must admit) go to the movies they go with an armed SS detail, and they're not in an auditorium with the general riff-raff like you and me. They attend special screenings with only invited guests (usually local schoolmates and Hollywood humanoids) and security thugs for company.

The only smears you seem to take exception to are against Republicans. It is a shirts against skins world we live in.

First, I appreciate admission that implicit admission that Palin was smeared. Second, I distinguished in this thread (or the other one on the shooting) something I thought was unfair to Obama. Third, since when did smearing become an acceptable tactic Mr. Dirty Sanchez? If your "it's a shirts vs. skin world" comment means something akin to "all's fair in politics" I say no, it's not. That's Alinski tactics. And Alinsky was one loathesome human being.

Just wanted to say about the locking people up...it's not all about locking up people who are a danger to others. Sometimes they are a danger to themselves and still can't be committed longer than 3 days. Neither system is perfect, the old one or the new one.

Is this relatively new for Presidents to give a national address on such a thing. I understand the political need to do it, but it doesn't make much sense otherwise. As terrible as it was , it wasn't an event of national political implications. It was one crazy man, of which there are thousands out there. Even the crime, while horrid is not unprecedented, or to me even surprising. It's incredibly easy to do, and all you need is severely broken mind and soul devoid of empathy. I don't think there has ever been a shortage of those. I'm surprised this does not happen much more.

I'm not trying to minimize it, I'm just asking what is the reason or purpose to a President addressing it. Just like the rest of us, there is nothing he can do about this one, or to prevent the next one. Was this done by Presidents before say the 1980's? I can't see FDR getting on the radio for something like this, but maybe he did.